Here is an analysis of the Immigration Exec Order 2.0, beginning round 2 of Trump lawyers vs Americas Best Immigration and Constitutional Lawyers. Any bets on how this revision will fare under intense legal analysis? It doesnt kick in until March 16, the Ides of March+1, Great Caesars Ghost. So I dont know if the lawyers can work on proactive stays, or what the legal pushback strategy would look like.

Take into consideration the source of the analysis, yes, I apologist up front for linking to Bitebarf, but some Italian suggested staying close to your enemies. I have selected some of what I considered interesting points, but have left out some dross. I am betting that the trump team is not up to the task of opposing much of the legal community. It does not seem to refute that the intent is still inherently discriminatory.

Trump has signed a new executive order blocking the arrival of travelers from six conflict-prone countries for 90 days, and freezing the inflow of refugees from any country for the next 120 days.

The new order shifts the task of stopping the refugees from officers at U.S. airports over to officials at U.S. embassies overseas, who have been told to stop preparing needed travel documents until Trump’s aides complete a national security review, according to documents released today by the White House.

The shift to overseas embassies may prevent judges from trying to block the new order, just as three California judges on Feb. 3 blocked part of Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order on refugees. Under the Constitution, judges have even less authority to block administrative actions in overseas embassies than judges now claim to have over officers working for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

The order blocks document processing for would-be refugees from Sudan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. A seventh country, Iraq, was dropped from the list when Iraqi officials promised to upgrade their security checks, the White House said. According to an explanation released by the White House:

The U.S. Government must ensure that those entering this country will not harm the American people after entering, and that they do not bear malicious intent toward the United States and its people. The Executive Order, together with the Presidential Memorandum, protects the United States from countries compromised by terrorism and ensures a more rigorous vetting process. This Executive Order ensures that we have a functional immigration system that safeguards our national security…

The Congress provided the President of the United States, in section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), with the authority to suspend the entry of any class of aliens the President deems detrimental to the national interest. This authority has been exercised repeatedly for decades, and has been a component of immigration law since the enactment of the original INA in 1952.

Read it all here and here.

Pro-immigration groups complained about the new safety measures. “The only way to actually fix the Muslim ban is not to have a Muslim ban,” said a statement from the ACLU. “Instead, President Trump has recommitted himself to religious discrimination, and he can expect continued disapproval from both the courts and the people.”

The first hurdle any legal challenge will have is to convince the judge that the EO is un-constitutional, but since the action is not occurring in the US that may be a hard sell.

However, to my way of thinking, the one point that has any hope of succeeding is to convince the judge that even if executed in foreign locations the EO is still illegal. Based upon International Law and agreements, the Embassy and or consulates of a nation are considered to be the sovereign soil of the embassy nation. I'm sure there is some legal principle for this, but I do not know what it might be. Well that is my two cents.

At least one judge used the 1952 civil rights provision that prohibits discrimination based upon religion. I can't cite it immediately (I'm traveling), but it is statutory and part of the immigration law.

_________________________A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

I am not going to do the research for this but why hasn't anyone listed the current vetting tests? Everyone says it takes 1-2 years and the rebuttal is some interviews are 30 seconds long. No one however states the obvious, if an applicant does not have paperwork, they can not enter. So I have to wonder, what additional vetting is the administration trying to implement? The problem is as everyone should know, no system is 100% and this is of course what the administration latched onto. But therein lies the problem. No additional system would in fact provide guarantees to make it 100%, especially if at least 50% are radicalized after they enter the US.

The only way they could get close is to ban all immigration and deport recent immigrants ex post facto. If they pursue this avenue of insanity, their only choice is to stop all immigration, thus defeating any argument on any legal grounds.

The reality is however these clowns are bigots and are trying their best to ban Muslims from immigrating. What is sad is about half the country wants the ban.

_________________________ignorance is the enemywithout equality there is no liberty

pondering_it_all
old hand
Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 6832
Loc: North San Diego County

Still, it's pretty much what I said he can do: Let in everybody with a green card or visa, stop harassing the foreign-borne if they have legal residence, slow down the processing of paperwork for some countries before visas are issued.

I think the "non-us soil" argument fails because embassies ARE US soil, but I bet they don't even try to make it.

I think the courts will say the executive branch can process paperwork fast or slow as they want. That's still within the law.